db-jdo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Persistent interface factory testing proposal
Date Sat, 03 Sep 2005 01:48:55 GMT
Hi Michael,

Thanks for your comments. I've incorporated them into the wiki page.

Please review the last part of the page, "Feedback Requested". There  
are issues with the naming of the classes.

On Sep 1, 2005, at 6:47 AM, Michael Bouschen wrote:

> Hi Craig,
> I like the description! A few comments:
> - In the changed xml example you introduced class  
> CompanyFactoryImpl. It might be helpful to mention that this class  
> implements the CompanyFactory interface, but it does not create the  
> instances itself. Instead it delegates to the factory specified by  
> the system property jdo.tck.mapping.companyfactory.

Sadly, it doesn't implement CompanyFactory. It implements the static  
methods needed by the xml bean factory, but CompanyFactory is an  
internal implementation interface.

I considered using the xml bean factory instance pattern, and didn't  
think it was as straightforward. I'd consider using it if it makes  
more sense.

Please comment on the "feeback requested" issue.


> - In sentence "The graph that is compared to the persistent graph  
> is always constructed using the class factory" it is not clear what  
> is meant by class factory. Actually this is the first factory  
> described in the list of concepts. Maybe it is easier to move the  
> sentence after the bulleted list and then refer the first factory.
> - The description uses the name CompanyFactoryImpl for a concrete  
> factory implementation: "The strategy for implementation is for a  
> concrete class CompanyFactoryImpl that contains ...". The xml  
> sample code use the same class name CompanyFactoryImpl as the name  
> of the factory that delegates to the concrete factory. I find this  
> confusing.
> - The description uses the class name CompanyFactoryAbstractImpl as  
> name of the abstract factory, the sample code adds the word  
> "Interface":
> CompanyFactoryInterfaceAbstractImpl. I think the description is  
> correct.
> - The constructor comment of the abstract factory sample code uses  
> the wrong class name.
> - The end of the document mentions that we need a factory that uses  
> the PM.newInstance method with the pc class as the argument. I  
> propose to add this option as the 4th concept under "The persistent  
> graph is constructed using one of these concepts:"
> the factory calls pm.newInstance on a concrete persistence capable  
> class
> - Minor: your text uses class names such as CompletenessTest,  
> CompanyFactory,etc. which are resolved as links to other wiki  
> pages. If you do not like these to show up as link just add two  
> backquotes before the upper case letter in the middle:  
> Completeness``Test.
> Regards Michael
>> Javadogs,
>> Please review http://wiki.apache.org/jdo/PersistentInterfaces for  
>> the test strategy for persistent interface factory pm.newInstance 
>> (PersistentInterfact.class).
>> Thanks,
>> Craig
>> Craig Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/ 
>> jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> -- 
> Michael Bouschen        Tech@Spree Engineering GmbH
> mailto:mbo.tech@spree.de    http://www.tech.spree.de/
> Tel.:++49/30/235 520-33        Buelowstr. 66
> Fax.:++49/30/2175 2012        D-10783 Berlin

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

View raw message